MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            1 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999029776

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his overall good service was not given proper consideration and that his separation was racially motivated.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant has suffered the effects of an undesirable discharge for over 40 years and deserves the Board’s consideration for clemency in the form of a discharge upgrade. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records.  However, his reconstructed records contain a report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he enlisted in Nashville, Tennessee on 8 October 1954 for a period of 3 years.

He completed his training as a medical corpsman and was transferred to Germany.  He was reduced to the pay grade of E-1 on 4 October 1957.

While the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 31 January 1958 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 23 days of total active service and had 180 days of lost time.

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness for those individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  Given the fact that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-1, 3 months prior to his discharge and had 180 days of lost time, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by any evidence submitted by the applicant or the available evidence of record. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__js_____  __gdp___  ___mmd_  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029776	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1958/01/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	583/UNFIT	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.5000	583/A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.